There was a short piece on NPR this morning, and it was as if they'd combed the country to find the most polyannaish gays in the country. The story centered around couples who had found that - shock! horror! - even though the state had said they could have a civil union, some churches and wedding photographers weren't willing to get involved. Litigation ensued. And I felt like saying to them, have you been living under a rock for the last six years? You didn't know that same-sex marriage is a bitterly divisive culture war flashpoint? Really? Do you watch the news - ever? You're really shocked that a church that believes that same-sex marriage is morally wrong doesn't want you marrying your same-sex parter there? I don't have a problem with gays, but I have a real problem with undereducated ill-informed morons if there's the slightest chance that they might vote.

Loathe as I am to admit it, the notorious Richard Bennett has a point. In this post, I put up an AP picture of two innocuous looking old ladies who recently took advantage of San Francisco’s decision to issue marriage licenses in violation of state law. My point was that the two hardly looked like the type out to corrupt the institution of marriage... As it turns out, the two very much are the type out to corrupt the institution of marriage. That is, they’re lifelong she-woman man-hating feminists...

Guess what? The two mentioned in the mea culpa are the same mentioned in this post.

Now, I don't expect Althouse to use teh Google for every name she runs across, but then again I don't expect a mea culpa from her either.

In November, the people of California will be seeing a ballot initiative that will seek a Constitutional ban on homosexual marriage. This initiative is expected to win handily and because it will become a Constitutional Amendment there isn't a judge on earth that will be able to overturn it. I personally have no problems with homosexuals or what they choose to do and I'm happy that anyone can find love real, deep, meaningful love. However, marriage isn't just about love and as most people realize it takes a lot to keep a marriage alive and intact, but homosexuals in this regard have and will set themselves up for failure because they have chosen to interject their will onto an institution that has enjoyed exclusivity for millenia. It doesn't matter that marriages of the past amongst heterosexuals where for reasons of politics, convenience, uniting two families, or even for love, but it was the unique bond of male and female under a time honored covenant that makes it unique for heterosexuals. The majority of people in this world are heterosexual, a 2% - 4% of people in this world and in this country are homosexual. That 2% - 4% has decided for whatever reason that it wants to be included in the institution of marriage. The reason that opposition to it is so great is due to the intrusive nature of that request. Now it has been bullied and pushed down to the citizens who opposed it by a large and vast majority. The judiciary has seen fit to overturn the will of the people in favor of the tyranny of the minority and with the coming initiative the people will blow it back to its original intent and it will be for naught to the entire homosexual citizenry. Remember the old saying, beware what you wish for because you just may get it.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Aaaaaaaaa!!!

Oh no, the institution of marriage is going to come crumbling down!! Just wait and see!!!!!

Actually John it won't. Do you know why? It's because heterosexuals believe in the institution of marriage so much that it is a bulwark that will forever remain erect. The familial, legal, traditional, and cultural aspects of marriage are so ingrained into who we are as people, not to mention genders that it projects itself as being exclusively heterosexual, and not the pervue of homosexuals. Homosexuals made a choice to engage in a homosexual relationships. In the past and even in the present these relationships aren't looked favorably upon by the vast majority of people and this proves itself out in every poll taken on the subject. Regardless of what you might think of it in terms of its hipness or trendiness, however, homosexuals do and legally enjoy nearly every privilege and right that heterosexuals do aside from being called married and instead known as civilly unionized. Not the most tasteful of phrases, but homosexuals are not barred from getting married either, just as long as its not to someone of the same gender.

What do you think the reaction will be when come November the institution of marriage and it's traditional practitioners come out in droves to see to it that marriage remains the exclusive property of heterosexuals for better or for worse? Some will grumble that it will be institutionalized discrimination, others will decry it as an act of bigotry and homophobia, but neglect to understand that most people, even homosexuals are bigoted and bigots, but not homophobes. Most will cheer that an intruder into the house of tradition and sanctity was kicked out lest it squat and make a mockery of something that they never had a privilege too to begin with.

Sometimes, John, the word no must have a meaning that must be understood. We can't be all things to all situations no matter how much we wish it were so. That is life and everyone must deal with it. Let homosexuals earn it the hard way. Convince heterosexuals once and for all through passion and conviction that they too have earned a seat at the matrimonial table instead of sending out their litigious goons to get a win the easy way. A way that garners no respect and a way that has no meaning.

Let homosexuals earn it the hard way. Convince heterosexuals once and for all through passion and conviction that they too have earned a seat at the matrimonial table instead of sending out their litigious goons to get a win the easy way. A way that garners no respect and a way that has no meaning.

Kinda like that meaningless Brown v. Board of Education case. Perhaps Steven Colbert said it best when he refused to honor Rosa Parks with the simple comment that real heroes don't break laws.

I realize this isn't the exact same thing as a "separate but equal" and that blacks were treated (by and large) much worse than gays are right now. But, given your comment I doubt that you can ever be convinced that homosexuals have "earned a seat at the matrimonial table."

Unless you're a resident of California or Massachusetts, your opinion is irrelevant to the functioning of our state democracies. We will deal with the matter as we see fit.

The residents of California did not decide this. Evidently their opinions are also irrelevant to the functioning of your state democracy. If you still want to call it that with a straight face (no pun intended)

Since marriage is legally available, how does that affect the California domestic partnership law which granted same-sex partners many of the same rights, protections and benefits as married couples? Is the choice either get married or lose benefits?

Gay marriage is not going to be much cause a decline of marriage as an institution. It is an extraordinary symptom of that decline though.

I'm always sort of amazed that people say things like "Gay marriage was legalized here today, but my wife and I still seem to be getting along" as if they were making a point. The thing is, those people are not generally really married- few people are these days.

My best friend lives with a woman. They have a child who is almost seven. They have never had a marriage ceremony. But they seem more married, to me, than many of my friends who have had such a ceremony.

I think gay marriage is a meaningless phrase. I'm not interested in allowing or prohibiting any particular arrangement, but I don't think that there is such a thing as a gay marriage. I also think that there are very few heterosexual marriages anymore.

Marriage is only necessary to the degree that some larger entity has an important stake in your relationship. This is why it takes an imbecile to say something like "Gay marriage doesn't seem to have hurt my marriage." Marriage has nothing to do with the participants' subjective experience. It has to do with the need of a larger entity to enforce rules.

Gay marriage cannot harm marriage, almost tautologically. Any society that contemplates gay marriage has abandoned marriage already. That's OK with me- I can't imagine getting married in the traditional sense, but I might consider marrying in the modern sense. It is a lot less committal.

"Oh no, the institution of marriage is going to come crumbling down!!"I have long misunderstood this event as the beginining of the end of marriage, but upon reflection recognize that marriage has been in its death throes in Western society for decades now, and this is simply putting grass seed on the grave.

Marriage's demise has always been, as are most errors in societal attempts to undo tradition, at the margins.

No, this decision will have no effect on a majority of hets wanting to marry. But it will further affect those at the margin. As if the absence of fathers in black subculture wasn't already deletirious enough, this supplies one more reason for men not to marry. And those men (and women) at the margin who do not marry affect the margin beneath them.

Not unlike erosion, the process will further the dysutility and irrelevance of marriage as the fundamental unit of society. Now it is a for-profit contest on TV, whose promises are as easily broken as they are made.

In Europe, where they are more enlightened than us, this decline of mariiage is complete, or nearly so, as cohabitation, however brief and multiple, outweighs marriage in volume. As a result, the State is more often called 'Dad' on Father's day.

And very soon, within a generation, Europe will no longer be peopled by folks as enlightened as they see themselves. They are being replaced by immigrants having 4, 6, and 8 children. And marrying several women to a man. What kind of society do you think they will vote for when they very very soon become the majority?

It won't be one that looks kindly on gay lives, much less gay marriage.

So I admit I was wrong. it's not the beginning of the end. it's the end of the end. Mock away.

Methadras said..."In November, the people of California will be seeing a ballot initiative that will seek a Constitutional ban on homosexual marriage[,] ... and because it will become a Constitutional Amendment there isn't a judge on earth that will be able to overturn it."

That only protects it from California's own courts. But see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (state constitutional amendment banning preferential treatment of homosexuals violates federal equal protection clause); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 590 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("State laws against [inter alia] ... same-sex marriage ... [are] sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision").

Addenda - come to think of it (I'm not caffeinated yet), it doesn't even protect it from California's courts, because they're as obligated to apply federal law as the federal courts. It's more accurate to say that a state constitutional amendment only shields a policy from scrutiny under the laws and Constitution of California, but its passage instantly creates a class of litigants with a colorable federal equal protection claim under prevailing caselaw.

I will agree with that. I might consider gay marriage a harbinger of, though not a cause of the decline of traditional western civilization, but I am not insensible to the concerns of the individuals involved. I wish them well, and I certainly regret that they must have had to keep things on the QT for a lot of years, given their apparent age.

I'm not sure what I think of gay marriage as a part of the traditional institution of marriage, but I'm certainly sure that happiness should be maximized where it can be. I wish these two, and any other couples who marry under this law, happiness.

Since marriage is legally available, how does that affect the California domestic partnership law which granted same-sex partners many of the same rights, protections and benefits as married couples? Is the choice either get married or lose benefits?

Zero effect. Domestic Partnership laws granted all the same benefits at the State level as marriage and still do.

HOWEVER, there is NO recognition at the Federal level and no recognition of domestic partnerships which often included hetero couples as well or gay marriage in many other states. Nothing has changed.

At the State level in California, gays or others who chose not to get married and opted for the DP status can still have all the benefits (health insurance etc.)

They could not and still cannot file IRS tax returns as married, get tax breaks on the health benefits, "inherit" the other person's social security income etc.

This has ZERO EFFECT except to piss off a bunch of voters who had their votes turned over by a bunch of judges.

I consider myself somewhat conservative on most issues but I honestly don't see what the big deal is with gays wanting to be married. Honestly, lax divorce laws have done more to damage the institution of marriage than allowing a couple of queens to exchange wedding vows. Lets face it folks, when hetero divorce rates are at the 50% mark, we have little room to argue that gay marriage will somehow wreck the institution of marriage.

Now I've said it before and will again, gay folks be warned, marriage ain't all roses. Its not just a social committment, its a legal one. Which means when Frank decides to dump John for fabulous Fabio, there will be this thing called a divorce and property settlement and oh yes for you Kali-for-nee-uns, alimony. Keep that in mind Titus that one day you could be in a custoday battle for the rare clumbers.

I think the gay community views marriage much how pre-21 year olds view the legal drinking age. It's quite a thrill for the first few months and shortly becomes old hat. Everyone always wants what they can't have.

Like what, do you come from Planet Claire? You have to be more explicit or I will mock you.

Let's be honest about a few things: first, gay men and gay women have very little in common.

Second, a really large number of gay men have been with a really large number of gay men. Much like a very small number of hetero men have been with a large number of hetero women. In other words, if you're a hetero male, I probably fucked your girlfriend at some point.

Well, we did decide. Now we get to decide again with a constitutional amendment.

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me if homosexual and lesbian couples want to get married. As I already stated, the change in the law changes nothing.

It does matter to me that the judges in California courts routinely negate and overturn the votes and will of the people. When the Constitutional amendment does appear on the ballot, I am going to vote for it basically because I'm sick to death of activist judges.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. Those names sound soooo familiar. Weren't they the two ladies who used to appear on the Dick Cavett Show back in about 1970 representing one of those "Old School" Gay Lib organizations?

Including same-sex couples under the rubric of marriage has changed its definition already. When I wax nostalgic in future I will picture my lovely Party A, in her long, white Party Adal gown, as we fed each other some of the cake topped by little Party A and Party B figurines. I did not attend her Party Adal shower, however. Some things are better left to the estrogen set... oh to hell with it.

In the fullness of time I would be interested to see which configuration has the most successful marriage rate. My guess is: lesbians, heteros, gay men. But that begs the question: what makes a successful marriage: duration, success of children, hottest sex, financial support etc.

"Public opinion shows that a majority of Californians support gay marriage. So we will see what happens in November."

That sort of depends on where you ask the question doesn't it? If you ask 100 people in the San Diego area and then extrapolate that sample to represent the entire state of California you are not getting an accurate picture. This is the fallacy of 'opinion polls' and the danger of relying on those polls. If you poll 100 people in my geographic area, you would get much much different result.

If the original bill that 4 million Californian's voted yes on was unconstitutional, then why was it allowed to go to the ballot in the first place? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of vetting process BEFORE the items are placed on the ballot for voters to decide?

The majority of Californian's are sick of being jerked around according the the polls that I have conducted at the local coffee shop. In addition the majority of those same Californian's would like to kick the rest of the State to the curb and start over as an independent State. The majority of these same Californians didn't vote for any of these politicians either. The majority of this group is Republican, Independent and Libertarian and voted 80% for Ross Perot both times.

When the Constitutional amendment does appear on the ballot, I am going to vote for it basically because I'm sick to death of activist judges.

That's terribly disappointing, DBQ. I'd hope you would vote based on your beliefs about the issue, especially given the amendment will affect the lives of other people more than your own. Voting to make a point about a process seems vindictive.

"I'd hope you would vote based on your beliefs about the issue, especially given the amendment will affect the lives of other people more than your own. Voting to make a point about a process seems vindictive."

Beth: Nothing vindictive about it and it doesn't affect other people's lives. The amendment or lack of amendment changes nothing. People who participate in Domestic Partnership unions, be they the same sex or hetero couples, have exactly the same legal benefits on the STATE level as people who get marriage licenses. There is not much difference other than a name. Marriage = Domestic Partnership

The discrimination or lack of same benefits is on a FEDERAL level and varies from State to State, where some States will recognize a California Domestic Partnership and other States will not.

There is no real advantage or disadvantage in calling it "marriage" or calling it "domestic partnership" or calling it any thing else. They are all the same within the State and calling it "marriage" means doodly squat in other states or for Federal purposes.

My beliefs on the issue are....I don't give a rip and it means nothing until the laws are uniform from State to State and the Federal Government and the IRS recognize the unions.

Side note: this is the problem that so many fiscal conservatives have with bond measures. Yeah, I'd love fund libraries, but we ought to be budgeting for it out of the funds that we do have rather than running into a CRISIS every 5 years. So is that a vote for or against the Library Bond?

"Kevin Voecks holds a Speedo that his partner, Paul Waters, has purchased for their wedding celebration Tuesday, June 17, 2008. The Speedo will be thrown, instead of a traditional garter, for men to catch at the reception. They will also throw a plaid flannel shirt, in lieu of a bouquet, for the women guests."----LA Times

Well, now! Those darling little images will do wonders for mainstream voters in November, I'm sure.

Expected by whom? The polls have been mixed on the issue, and it is likely the issue will fade in importance over the next five months as annoyance over the court ruling fades.

Nearly 1.3 million people signed petitions to put this ballot initiative on the November ballot. That isn't small potatoes. Not to mention that the previous vote was roughly was way into the millions against homosexual marriage that was overturned. Do you really think that the courts did the homosexual marriage movement a favor by handing them an overturned initiative to celebrate? I know you live in San Diego so you pretty much know the general sentiments that a lot of people here are angry at having their votes thrown aside in favor for a very tiny minority.

Also, I'm not looking at any polls on this subject. I'm looking at raw ballot data because that's where the rubber meets the road and from the looks of it, this state constitutional amendment will pass. Even if every homosexual in the state votes against it, it won't be nearly enough to overcome those that want this amendment. However, I think the undercurrent of this story that hasn't been touched upon is the relative calm that this thing has taken. You don't see roving bands of heterosexuals interjecting themselves to stop this. You aren't seeing mass demonstrations, MayDay style do you? For the most part, it's been peaceful and the live and let live attitude for now is holding steady, but most heterosexuals of voting age don't want it and hopefully they will get to the polls and say as much.

First of all, the initiative needs a simple majority to pass. That will not be an issue even in California. Considering the historical turnout at the polls, that will not be an issue. The homosexual activists are starting to rally their troops to try and defeat the initiative and they are desperate. Characterizations that homosexual marriage is akin to civil rights will be used as wrong as a characterization as that is. Blacks and Latinos tend to be traditionalists when it comes to social issues and they will be key players in getting that simple majority. However, even the polling data in terms of it's demographics neglects one important demographic and that is geographic location within the state. Yes, it's a random sampling, but it isn't broken down by area code or geography.

If the initiative passes, the only issue will be if the currently married homosexuals will have their marriages invalidated or stand. I think they would become invalidated, but that's just me.

"The poll of 1,052 registered Californian voters was taken from May 17-26, in the days after California Supreme Court decision, and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points to 5 percentage points, depending on the question"

Citing polls is a fool's way of trying to validate his own opinion. Does anyone seriously think that asking 1052 voters who had nothing better to do than to be home and answer the phone is reflective of the millions of people who are busy working or who are smart enough to have caller ID on their phones?

As I pointed out earlier. Asking 1052 people in the San Diego or San Francisco area this question is going to get you a much different response than 1052 folks in Yuba City or Bakersfield.

Well, if you read the poll that I linked to above, you'd see how it accurately reflects voter sentiments around the year when Prop 22 passed, so the poll was in line with opinion then, but it's not now?

However, even the polling data in terms of it's demographics neglects one important demographic and that is geographic location within the state. Yes, it's a random sampling, but it isn't broken down by area code or geography.

Wrong.

The poll asked a "random sample" from various regions and area (as seen on Table 2, page 4 of the document.)

Asking 1052 people in the San Diego or San Francisco area this question is going to get you a much different response than 1052 folks in Yuba City or Bakersfield.

Wrong again (see Table 2, page 4).

Blacks and Latinos tend to be traditionalists when it comes to social issues and they will be key players in getting that simple majority.

Polls aren't everything, true. But the Field Poll has been consistently reflective up until now, so I'd wait until November before I started questioning it.

The majority of Californian's are sick of being jerked around

And I thought gays were drama queens. Jerked around? Maybe you shouldn't have voted for something that discriminates against your fellow American citizens. Sorry, gosh. I know how you feel.

Even if every homosexual in the state votes against it, it won't be nearly enough to overcome those that want this amendment.

You're forgetting about all the straight friends, families, and co-workers of those "homosexuals" (you love using that word over and over again, don't you?) who will join them in voting this amendment down. And you're forgetting about all the other rational Californians out there, who aren't gay and don't know any gay people, but know that they don't want discrimination written in to their state's constitution.

If the original bill that 4 million Californian's voted yes on was unconstitutional, then why was it allowed to go to the ballot in the first place? Isn't there supposed to be some sort of vetting process BEFORE the items are placed on the ballot for voters to decide?

They aren't vetted by the courts, although I believe the state attorney general looks them over. That would have been Bill Lockyer, most famously known as the moron who called for Ken Lay to be raped in prison. I wouldn't trust him to read the instructions on a shampoo bottle, let alone to tell if a statute is constitutional or not.

It has been established for years that the California Constitution does not permit state discrimination against homosexuals. The courts made an entirely legitimate decision in striking down Prop 22. Its proponents should have proposed an amendment in the first place; they refused to do so because they were afraid it was less likely to pass.

Nearly 1.3 million people signed petitions to put this ballot initiative on the November ballot. That isn't small potatoes.

It tells us that at least 3% of the state's population supports banning gay marriage as of a couple weeks ago. It doesn't suggest that the measure will pass five months from now.

Not to mention that the previous vote was roughly was way into the millions against homosexual marriage that was overturned.

Yes, but that was eight years ago. Both California and the United States as a whole are significantly less homophobic than they were then. If the measure does pass, it will pass with a much smaller margin than Proposition 22 did.

Do you really think that the courts did the homosexual marriage movement a favor by handing them an overturned initiative to celebrate?

No, I stated in an earlier thread that I thought this was a tactical error on the part of gay activists, as it is still possible for an amendment banning gay marriage to pass. In five or ten years it definitely would not be; achieving a ruling like this then would have been safer.

I know you live in San Diego so you pretty much know the general sentiments that a lot of people here are angry at having their votes thrown aside in favor for a very tiny minority.

Well no, actually, but I'll concede that they're probably out there somewhere. This is a pretty socially conservative city, after all -- but it is also the *only* socially conservative major city in California.

I'm looking at raw ballot data because that's where the rubber meets the road and from the looks of it, this state constitutional amendment will pass. Even if every homosexual in the state votes against it, it won't be nearly enough to overcome those that want this amendment.

You're falsely assuming that only homosexuals would be against amending the state constitution to screw over homosexuals. Like most heterosexuals under the age of 40 I consider opposition to gay marriage to be silly and ignorant, and I'm certainly not going to support amending the constitution to ban it.

Kinda like that meaningless Brown v. Board of Education case. Perhaps Steven Colbert said it best when he refused to honor Rosa Parks with the simple comment that real heroes don't break laws.

Funny, but irrelevant.

I realize this isn't the exact same thing as a "separate but equal" and that blacks were treated (by and large) much worse than gays are right now. But, given your comment I doubt that you can ever be convinced that homosexuals have "earned a seat at the matrimonial table."

How could one go about proving such a thing anyway?

I'm was trying to be somewhat fair about this, but I can only characterize it this way. Homosexuals and their view on marriage is on par of a novelty at the moment. They see it as an acquisition of territory to some point of legitimacy because they are naturally excluded from participation based on their gender preferences. Right now the homosexual community, as I see it is akin to a rebellious teenager who wishes nothing more than to be a contrarian to it's parents authority. It doesn't respect heterosexuals, it doesn't respect heterosexual traditions, it just doesn't want to respect. Now understand, I'm being overly general when I'm making this characterization. But whenever I see pride, regardless of where it is, I see disrespect towards heterosexual(ity)(s) traditions and institutions. The level of deviant behavior in the homosexual community is at times surreal and not in line with normative public adult behavior. It is seen as perverse and immoral and is regarded with disdain. The homosexual community is too immature in it's stature to be given appropriate respect at the table with heterosexuals and that includes marriage.

I'm not sure if I was able to articulate my sentiments on clarifying how homosexuals can join with heterosexuals on a large scale equal footing of marriage and I've probably done a poor job of it. It's an abstract that is quite complex to put into words at times.

It has been established for years that the California Constitution does not permit state discrimination against homosexuals.

Correct> And that is why there is no discrimination in that Domestic Partnerships are equal in the eyes of the law in the State of California. Domestic Partnerships, while equal in California are NOT legal in many states and are NOT recognized by the Federal government. Get married in California as of yesterday and it still means doo-squat in another State. Waddya wanna do about that???

Do you seriously think that the views of 1052 people (79% of whom are from the LA SF and other Southern California areas) are representative of the entire State of California? I personally doubt a constitutional amendment will actually pass. But you never know. People are mad about having their votes overturned again and again. Our "dear leaders: are not even pretending that we are a democracy or a representative republic anymore. Sure....they let the rubes vote, but then just ignore it and do what they want anyway.

And that is why there is no discrimination in that Domestic Partnerships are equal in the eyes of the law in the State of California.

The concept of "separate but equal" doesn't find much acceptance in courts these days. Besides, while domestic partnerships enjoyed *many* of the state benefits of marriage, they didn't enjoy *all* of them -- so they were separate and UNequal.

Do you seriously think that the views of 1052 people (79% of whom are from the LA SF and other Southern California areas) are representative of the entire State of California?

Well... yes. Because I'm pretty sure approximately 79% of the population of California lives in or around Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other Southern California areas. That leaves 7 million people for the inland deserts and the areas up near Oregon, which sounds about right.

People are mad about having their votes overturned again and again.

Then they should move to a country with unrestricted majority rule. Personally, there's no way in hell I'd go anywhere near such a country.

"As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). "

Equal. Not separate, because until now, domestic partnerships and marriage were not defined as being the same. This is what the crux of the matter is and why people are upset. Some people think it is the same thing. Others think that the definition of marriage doesn't include same sex unions. Others like myself, think it is all a bunch of semantics that means nothing because the laws haven't changed one iota in terms of benefits for being married to your same sex partner in the State of California.

"Then they should move to a country with unrestricted majority rule. Personally, there's no way in hell I'd go anywhere near such a country."

I live in such a State. California. Don't you? Unrestricted majority rule..... except for when a special interest minority doesn't like what the majority has voted for and gets it overturned by a minority of judges. Doing an end run around the voters by using the court system.

But whenever I see pride, regardless of where it is, I see disrespect towards heterosexual(ity)(s) traditions and institutions.

I take it you are talking about "gay" pride...unless you're saying that pride in general (i.e. I have pride in my new car) is disrespectful towards heterosexuals? That would be weird.

Clips of wild and crazy gays in leather on the O'Reilly Factor do not wholly represent the gay community, just as clips of raving religious protesters don't wholly represent straight people. But whatever...believe whatever you want, you are clearly in your own world.

The level of deviant behavior in the homosexual community is at times surreal and not in line with normative public adult behavior. It is seen as perverse and immoral and is regarded with disdain. The homosexual community is too immature in it's stature to be given appropriate respect at the table with heterosexuals and that includes marriage.

"I'm pretty sure approximately 79% of the population of California lives in or around Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other Southern California areas."

This cracked me up. It's true tho'--30% of Californians live in LA County alone--about a third of which is unpopulated desert area. About one out of 8 Americans lives in California. So, back of the envelope, one out of 25 Americans lives in this relatively small area. It's kind of mind-boggling.

Well, entitled to the same state rights and benefits, anyway (I had thought they were still treated different for adoptions, but I guess I was mistaken).

Not separate, because until now, domestic partnerships and marriage were not defined as being the same.

Um, yes. That would be part of what made them "separate". Black people were similarly not defined as being the same as whites in the states that had "separate but equal" schools.

One cannot rationally argue that two institutions are truly equal while simultaneously insisting that they be called by separate names. It certainly makes no sense to get *angry* about a name change, which so many people are doing. The fact that so many people are so mad about this is in itself strong evidence that there was something to marriage which was being denied to domestic partners.

I live in such a State. California. Don't you?

There is no unrestricted majority rule anywhere in the United States, nor has there ever been. We have a federal Constitution specifically designed to prevent such a thing from happening. The California Constitution has similar safeguards. The majority can only have what it wants if the state and federal Constitutions both allow it. If they don't then tough cookies for the majority.

Doing an end run around the voters by using the court system.

Yes. Because the Founders recognized that the voters are often wrong. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself; when democracy yields results which run counter to the rights of the citizenry, democracy is and should be ignored. That is the key feature of the American system that makes us so superior to nations which place no restrictions on the tyranny of the majority.

The homosexual community is too immature in it's stature to be given appropriate respect at the table with heterosexuals and that includes marriage.

That's an insane way to look at a group of people. A person is an individual; he is not responsible for the "community" society sees him as being born into, nor does he necessarily share many traits with the other people in it.

Take the black community, for example -- bad school performance, atrocious crime rates, widespread illegitimacy, etc. Now, these facts were in the past used (e.g. by National Review) to argue that blacks weren't ready to be full citizens of the United States with full rights. Today we recognize that that attitude was horrifically racist, because it lumps smart, high-achieving, law-abiding black people in with the criminals just because they share the same skin color.

Your attitude is no better. You see some "deviant" gays on TV and react by denying decent, monogamous gay couples access to marriage -- even though they themselves might be more moral and faithful than the average heterosexual couple. There is nothing about being gay that automatically makes person a sex-mad deviant. That sort of thinking should be relegated to Jack Chick comics. Even if gays are more *likely* to have all sorts of crazy polygamous sex, that's no reason to preemptively discriminate against all gay people. You end up punishing good people for the sins of other people they have no control over.

Well, sure. Although at the federal level that isn't so easy, of course.

The point is, if a constitution won't allow democracy to do something, you either change the constitution or change what you were trying to do. Complaints about democracy being thwarted don't work, because thwarting democracy is one of the primary functions of a constitution.

I don't care much about gay marriage, tbh. This is probably because I am opposed to marriage. As a simple matter of civil rights it should be clear to any right-thinking American that marriage is a violation of the civil rights of the single.

I don't like dissembling and muddy thinking though, and the gay marriage movement is a rich vein of such.

Let's note, first, what I call argumentum ad switcheroo. It's a common fallacy, and one that should be called out more often.

You can make one of two arguments for gay marriage. You can argue based on rights. Or you can argue that it is good social policy.

The problem is that if you argue that gay marriage is a civil right, even if it has bad effects for the polity, you open the door to polygamy. It is impossible to argue for a fundamental right to gay marriage without arguing for a fundamental right to polygamy.

This is where the switch comes in. When it is pointed out that the argument for gay marriage as a civil right implies a right to polygamy, gay marriage advocates switch tactics and start to argue social policy: they argue that gay marriage is good social policy, but that polygamy is bad social policy.

The problem is this: if the argument for gay marriage is based on rights, it should be decided by the courts. In that case polygamy should be legalized at the same time.

If the argument for gay marriage is based on social policy it should be decided by the legislature. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of law-making bodies willing to offend their constituents by legalizing gay marriage.

So the only refuge that the gay-marriage advocate has is the switcheroo. This amounts to arguing that gays should be allowed to do whatever they want, and receive preferential treatment for it, but any other non-traditional arrangement should not be recognized by the state.

This is a Gordian knot, and the best solution is to slice it at once. Marriage, as a state institution, is clearly not needed now. It should be done away with. Then, Gay and Straight, Monogamous and Polygamous, we can all live together in peace, without arguing or bitching about the distribution of spoils.

Also: before you have kids, please accumulate enough money to support them. As a single man with no kids I am really tired of forking over more than one third of my income to assist in the replication of your genes.

Note: I actually don't care at all that your children have adequate dental care- it's fine with me if their teeth fall out in 30 years.

I take it you are talking about "gay" pride...unless you're saying that pride in general (i.e. I have pride in my new car) is disrespectful towards heterosexuals? That would be weird.

Yes, I was talking about gay pride.

Clips of wild and crazy gays in leather on the O'Reilly Factor do not wholly represent the gay community,

I've been to several gay pride events in San Fransisco, LA, New York, Boston. I don't need to watch O'Reilly to understand what goes on at pride. However, your characterization of how I define it based on your assumption of what I watch is arrogant and somewhat offensive. I make judgments on what I experience as I understand an issue for what it is, not what's on television.

You are going to have to clarify this statement about which religious protesters you are referring to, what they are protesting, and how it dovetails with the discussion at hand. As an aside, your clumsy attempt at equivocation reveals your ignorance.

But whatever...believe whatever you want, you are clearly in your own world.

And now you dismissively try to put the issue to rest as a characterization that my opinion isn't worth discussing because you believe that what I've said is out of the norm. I'm not sure what world you are living in, but there are multiple tens of millions of people that completely and utterly disagree with the notion that homosexuals should come anywhere near the sanctity of marriage for more than just religious reasons. But it is apparent that you've already shut down your thinking during this discussion.

The level of deviant behavior in the homosexual community is at times surreal and not in line with normative public adult behavior. It is seen as perverse and immoral and is regarded with disdain. The homosexual community is too immature in it's stature to be given appropriate respect at the table with heterosexuals and that includes marriage.

Insanity.

Another declaration without clarification and a misguided and ill-informed characterization on top of it as well. I'm not sure what your perspective is on homosexuals or homosexual marriage if what I've said in the above statement equates to insanity to you. It's incumbent upon you to clarify why. Can you do it or are you just going to backdoor your way out of this discussion and leave behind your stupid characterizations?

There is nothing insane in what I said. This is my observation of a historical understanding based on my study of homosexuals, homosexual lifestyle, culture, history, artwork, literature and so on. If I'm going to have friends who are of a sexual orientation different than mine, then I've taken the responsibility to at least try to understand the mechanics of it all instead of attempting to flail, emotionally, through the subject. Homosexuality has had a rich and storied past, but it had it's place and it was segregated away. In this modern age, it has acquired a militancy that has been unprecedented in it's invasiveness in American culture and society. It is an issue that must be discussed, rationalized, opined upon. You would just call a characterization you disagree with as 'insanity' and walk away the lesser for it because you are choosing to disregard what is being said. I can't force you to accept what I'm saying, but I won't let you get away with calling it insanity. Put up or shut up.

"We do get damn annoyed by short-sighted thinkers--and whiners--such as you, though."

And I get annoyed that I have to financially support the propagation of the genes of illiterates like you.

This is simple, really- I don't care how much it costs to send your genetically inferior offspring to a school that offers material that they cannot appreciate and that will not help them in their future careers as roofers and cheap prostitutes. You are free to waste your money as you wish.

But the truth is that the US tax code is set up in such a way that I do in fact support your children. Since this is the case, I want some input into who gets to breed. Let's be honest here- you would not likely make the cut.

I am proposing a simple system that would allow me, homosexuals, and degenerate throwbacks like you to live together in peace. I would call it "minding your own fucking business, and paying your own fucking way." Do you have a problem with that?

"This is a Gordian knot, and the best solution is to slice it at once. Marriage, as a state institution, is clearly not needed now. It should be done away with. Then, Gay and Straight, Monogamous and Polygamous, we can all live together in peace, without arguing or bitching about the distribution of spoils."

In style and tone, you are a completely insufferable prick. But you're absolutely correct on this point. I've argued this same point here many times, only to be ignored in all the shouting and wailing and grandiloquent dramatic scenes about how "joyous" it is that the state has decided to issue gay people a license.

I'd add further: if gay marriage is a rights issue, then why does our tax policy discriminate against the single? Why are gay people (or straight people) so happy that the State has allowed yet another group of people into its tax discount plan, yet continues to force single people to pay more? The only non-discriminatory way to handle the "marriage issue" is to completely remove it from the hands of the State. When did it become acceptable for the government to sanction and reward people's fickle romantic entanglements, whatever the gender of the participants? Leave marriage to the churches.

Palladian says: "In style and tone, you are a completely insufferable prick."

Thanks. I try. If you get a spare moment you might consider that I do cut through all that "wailing" like lemon juice in a fine vinaigrette.

reader_iam says: "So, what part of what I said got your knickers in such a twist that you went straight for the teh stupid, sir?"

Well you are simply proving that you are an illiterate with this. You can't even read your own writing. Here's a hint: "We do get damn(sic) annoyed by short-sighted thinkers--and whiners--such as you, though."

If you want to open hostilities, fine. But don't come _whining_ around when your serve is returned.

Couple questions: have you ever taken the earned income tax credit? Does your job provide benefits for your children? If the answer to either question is yes, then your children are being supported by other people. That's just the start though.

Is that a rhetorical question? Well, just for fun, let's compare and contrast:

I made a general statement, not addressed to anyone in particular. It must have touched a a nerve though, because you responded with:

"We do get damn annoyed by short-sighted thinkers--and whiners--such as you, though."

I responded with a mixture of insult and substance.

Then you made a whole bunch of statements about your personal finances and childrearing habits, in support of your point. Then you bitched that I questioned you (socratically) on a couple of those points (while not answering the questions, which is OK, because it would be very surprising if the answers were not "yes and "yes").

I think it would be unfair to imply that I had made an impersonal conversation personal, given those circumstances.